Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/09/19 in all areas

  1. 20 points
    Sometimes the greatest things can begin as beautiful accidents. Take this afternoon for instance. R&R was just going for a walk, when they fell down the stairs right into the BK slave pits. After taking stock of the new labor, it was decided this is not a rollable offense. Thenceforth, Coalition and B and R&R are proud to announce they have signed a Non-Aggression Pact. The length of this NAP shall be the remainder of the present war plus six months. Let the celebrations commence, and please check your downvotes at the door. Thank you for your cooperation!
  2. 16 points
    So... let me see if I've got this right. "Anime Nazis" are now worse than "Nazi Nazis", since the latter are your best buddies. You heard it here folks, straight from the man himself! Make sure not to leave your uniform behind when you leave VM Thrax! Honk Honk!
  3. 13 points
  4. 12 points
    I wanted to add another level to government with leader,heir,officers,(the new one) many of alliances have leader heir high gov low gov I used the black knights government as an example under their archduke would be the new government position
  5. 12 points
    I was just going to post a link instead of the whole thing here, but i'm told y'all are lazy and i have to do both. Enjoy the textwall. The Treaty of Astra Preamble The Signatories of this document come together, to observe in unison, the articles detailed within, and carry out those obligations listed to the fullest extent. The name “Astra” of an ancient lost language, meaning “Weapon”. A weapon is a forged instrument of precision, engineering, and countless failures required to produce a tried and tested tool. The Signatories hereof, abandon their roots to enter The Forge. Articles Article One - Sword and Shield Doctrine Mutual Defense, Mutual Aggression (MDAP). The Signatories of this treaty agree to stand unmoved, whether occasion be defense from any attack, or aggression for any reason deemed necessary. Clause One of Article One: Noble Combat Defense or Aggression obligations can be waived and circumvented ONLY in the case where all engaged parties waive these obligations. Other Signatories may choose to obligate regardless, thus returning this obligation to the others. Clause Two of Article One: Intelligence All Signatories are required to share intelligence gathered or given to them in the event that said intelligence pertains to security and interests of the bloc or one of its Signatories. How or if this information is acted upon is up to the discretion of the recipient. Article Two - Seven Nation Army The Signatories of this document agree to a structure of unified command. All Signatories will maintain their domestic rankings and responsibilities, however, the Bloc itself shall have a command structure made up of the Signatories’ own domestic personnel. These will be appointed positions separated into two categories of High and Low Command. Positions of High Command will be vetted and appointable by a council of the Signatories Leadership and High Government. Low Command will be vetted and appointable by a council of the Government, including low gov, of all Signatories. Appointment and vetting will be based upon merit, availability, and willingness. High Command shall be comprised of the Unified Forces Commander in Chief (UFCC), assisted Unified Forces Commanders (UFC). Low Command Shall be comprised of Unified Forces Officers. Clause One of Article Two: Emergency Situations, all Government of all Signatories will have training and minor experience relating to their level (high, low) in their domestic alliance. In Emergency Situations where the event occurs that Unified Command is unavailable, any personnel on-scene will be equipped and authorized to take control of the situation until Unified Command arrives. Article Three - Independent Arms The Signatories of this document agree to and recognize the inalienable right to sovereignty of domestic affairs of all Signatory alliances. Affairs of Internal, Economic, or Foreign concern are left to the discretion of each Signatory, Military Affairs will remain as a Joint-Command between all Signatories as listed in Article Two. Article Four - No Chains All Signatories agree to refrain from signing frivolous treaties with non-Signatories. It is entirely permissible for any Signatory at any time to bring forward a recommendation for either an alliance to become a Signatory or for said alliance to become an Associated Entity to the Bloc. Associated Entities may take the form of any treaty so long as this treaty and the Associated Entity status is agreed on by vote as listed in Article Five. Clause One of Article Four: Leaving the Nest Signatories are permitted, if they so desire, to have and maintain a relationship with a Protector. This option should be reserved for the smallest and most inexperienced members to provide further opportunity to learn from many perspectives. Clause Two of Article Four: Taking Flight In the event a Signatory has grown to sufficient size to no longer seek the aid of a protector, or such time that the Bloc has grown and organized itself to a sufficient point of maintaining defense, Signatories may bring forward a proposed treaty upgrade to be voted upon as an Associated Entity Treaty. Furthermore, Signatories also have the choice to upgrade their Protector treaty and leave the Bloc if either party is unwilling, or if a vote to accept an Associated Entity Treaty fails, to stay with their former protector, or to leave regardless to seek their own way. An upgrade may also be permitted in the form of a strict MnDoAP, which will apply ONLY to the direct Signatory and no other members of the Bloc, Provided that the number of these treaties in total to the Bloc are limited to a number no greater than 3, until otherwise changed per voting in Article 5. Protector/Protectorate relationships with outside powers will always be treated as the one-way MDPs they are intended, so as to avoid a clash with the Bloc’s current interests or with Associated Entities. If such a conflict does not occur, expansion is to the discretion of the Signatories. Clause Three of Article Four: Guarding the Young In the event that a Signatory of suitable size to no longer require a protector seeks to protect others themselves, such interests should be brought forward to vote by the Signatories. All protectorates will be of the Bloc as a whole, and not of individual alliances. This will guarantee a new level of exposure to learning opportunities, as well as support and protection. Alliances interested in becoming Signatories which possess protectorates they wish to keep will require the protectorates signature on the appropriate Bloc treaty detailing terms and to pass a vote. Article Five - A Voice For All All Signatories will be entitled to a vote on Bloc matters requiring one. This includes Protectorates, Associated Entities, Decisions to go to war, to accept/remove Signatories, Exceptions to rules, etc. The only time a Signatory will lack a vote is when the issue at vote specifically relates to the acceptance or removal of a Signatory. All votes will be concluded by Simple Majority. Article Six - Adherence Signatories agree to adhere to all Articles, Clauses, and obligations within as stated in this document. Failure to meet adherence, or to otherwise be a disruptive, hostile, or uncooperative member may result in a vote to remove Signatory status and eject the offender from the Bloc. Clause One of Article Six: Righteous Rebellion Events may occur wherein a strong reason is provided for the failure to adhere to this treaty. If Righteous Rebellion is claimed, a hearing and vote will occur to determine if this status is appropriate. This status may be appropriate if the Signatory activating obligations of the Treaty is behaving in an exceedingly destructive, toxic, or outlandish manner. This will also be applicable in the even a Signatory is found to have been feeding intelligence on the Bloc to outside parties, plotting with outside parties to take military action not sanctioned by the Bloc, or actions directly harming the Bloc. Article Seven - Supremacy All Signatories agree that the treaty established and signed here takes precedence over all other treaties which may be signed for any reason, particularly in the case where honoring said treaty would put Signatories in conflict with one another or wherein Associated Entities may enter conflict against one another where the Signatories choose not to take sides for any reason. Article Eight - Goodbyes In the event that any Signatory should wish to end their membership in the Bloc, they are free to do so for whatever reason, and may or may not state this at their own discretion. Exit from the Bloc will remain peaceful and cordial, and will be subject to a 120 hour cancellation period, as well as agreement to return any held resources or to continue payment of any held debts to any Signatory. Appendices Appendix 1 - Signatories For North Point: Akuryo For The Coal Mines: Nokia Rokia Evernt For Weebunism: Empiur For Brotherhood of the Clouds: Dusty For Golden Phoenix Coalition: Minesome MC For Amestris: Piss Face The first order of business will be to get a better flag. It's too bland for my liking. Well, actually it'll be reviewing protectorates, but the flag is #2 on the list i assure you. Technically #3 if you count making everyone trim their treaties before this. It's on the docket, okay? Okay. Please file all suggestions under the category of "disband" to Customer Support run by @Solar. @Empiur @Dusty @MinesomeMC @piss face @Nokia Rokia Since someone asked: tl;dr Akuryo writes treaty for a bunch of micros with the express goal of taking things seriously to stop being shitty micros.
  6. 12 points
  7. 11 points
    I've been seeing ads for stuff like World of Tanks. I think Google curates the ads to show you what it thinks you want
  8. 10 points
  9. 10 points
    I’ve seen you call out a lot of people this war. How are you weathering in this conflict? I hope things are going well There are a lot of nations that are having a hard time coping and are slipping into Vacation Mode. Some of these folks are so freaked out by the war that they are actively posting and are lurking on the forums/discord for several hours at a time and yet still keep their nation in VM. Yikes, amirite? Anywho, with how much smack talk you’re constantly giving and how active you are - I figured you must be personally responsible for a lot of your Coalition’s success. Nice work! Oh....whoops.
  10. 9 points
    Where are the people complaining about realism like in other suggestion type threads? How can players possibly play that many games in a single day?! Clearly the cap needs to be 2 games a day max. Athletes can't survive playing more than double headers on a near daily basis. And a 5 second delay? There's no way a game of baseball could possibly finish in 5 seconds. The delay needs to be 3 hours, at least. This needs to be more real. You're ruining my immersion.
  11. 8 points
    Normally I hate on micros a lot since TBH, they suck. But since I've got loads of friends in these I hope your bloc goes well. But you guys know the rules, I've gotta hate on micros one way or another. ;,p Disband your trash micros and join a real alliance you plebs
  12. 8 points
    Why is Nokia listed as a leader but is running the Originals
  13. 6 points
    People have been asking for this for a long time. There's a good reason for it, for example i make low gov as officers. I'd like my econ head to have a low gov, however, because he's econ, he'd need bank access to do his job. Creating an offshore to protect against a full robbery is easy, since low gov is still a starter job even if only more experienced players would be given this opportunity anyway. The problem is that only high gov (heir) and leader have bank access. If i make them as an heir, now i risk getting couped. I can't simply give the permissions to officer, as as i've stated low gov econ has a higher entry bar, and i dont want to give bank access to people who may well be total noobs that wanted to learn and help IA. I could demote them all so they are just members ingame, but now they can't do their jobs, which include interviewing and accepting applicants, dealing with inactives, or making announcements. However if a 4th gov position is added i can now have myself, the 2ic if/when i choose one, the high gov with the low gov econ in there (since that level wouldn't be able to coup) and then everyone else in low gov, and everyone able to perform their jobs without me risking a coup, Alternatively take one of the good things from CN and make it possible to assign certain permissions to certain people, as this also fixes the problem.
  14. 6 points
    Putting ones values aside is okay if it means rolling BK.
  15. 5 points
    looking at some of your coalition partners Hmmm yes good comment.
  16. 4 points
    Are we Coalition B or Memesphere? This pigeon however knows the Art of the Deal inside and out and we are seeing the results right here. This is the type of dynamic politics Orbis has been craving.
  17. 4 points
    Bit large file, but it's 11sec
  18. 4 points
    Yeah, that's not what I was trying to get at though. I was saying that you should consider having only home games count towards that 1000. I think not doing so will further encourage people to only play home games, which makes playing baseball significantly more difficult.
  19. 4 points
  20. 4 points
    This is a phenomenal post and you should feel good.
  21. 4 points
    This report is not only a waste of moderation’s time, it further proves that instead of tackling an issue head on - you want to use moderation to try and divert political arguments or points. In multiple threads you have insulted our coalition and members of our coalition. Which is fine, because this is Politics and War - Politics can be messy. However, when someone then calls you out about the war (in a thread about the war), you run for the mods? Weak sauce, sir. It’s a waste of the mods’ time and sets a dangerous precedent for others to follow.
  22. 3 points
    As you guys all know, Politics and War fulfils the "war" part of it's name, but not the "politics" part. I was thinking that maybe we should include policies that affect the growth of your nation, as it does irl. Also I think we should have approval rating affect the tax income, since nobody likes to pay taxes to a terrible government.
  23. 3 points
    Currently, the baseball nerfs are excessive, to the extent that they punish casual or normal players. As a mediocre baseball player, I'd be able to exceed the baseball cap in only 1 and a half hours of play. Likewise, as a mediocre baseball player, I can only do 15 games per minute, meaning that even I myself can end up hitting the "timer" cap on baseball. Suggested response: -Increase the baseball soft cap to 2000 home games per day. This would generate about 22,500,000 million per day once tips are factored in. It's a mechanic that benefits active players and encourages activity, but does not penalize others too much. For comparison purposes, a 15 city nation would be making about 20-30 million per day, so baseball would not comprise an excessive proportion of their income. -Decrease the baseball delay to 3 seconds. This implies a max game rate of 20 games per minute, which most players can achieve..
  24. 3 points
    Congrats? Though I thought R&R had a one way non aggression pact with everyone..
  25. 3 points
    I don't see what the big deal is. Being downvoted won't kill you. If being downvoted dissuades you from speaking your mind, seems to me you lack the conviction to stand behind your post. Or you are wrong and can't take criticism. The karma system is pretty stupid to be fair. I only find upvotes/downvotes useful for guaging peoples opinions on specific posts. I don't see any value in having a scoreboard, but w/e. The better thing to do would be to add more types of reaction to posts if possible. That should clear up any confusion as to why people are downvoting you. Split up downvote into "Disagree", "Dumb", and "Who Cares" reactions. Change upvote to "Agree". "Funny", "Helpful" or something. Not sure why we have an upvote and a like button.
  26. 3 points
    I mean this entire statement is wrong, BK's "burden of proof" for nova was way may compelling, the nova incident, im not sure why you think the burden of proof regarding AK is even remotely substantial, all the "proof" people have from AK is one government member cheated and may or may not have gotten that information from elsewhere. Nova being rolled "portionally" is really another argument altogether, the real argument I was trying to get across here was that, there is not enough proof to implicate AK or their government at this time. It partially my fault the argument strayed slightly but anyways overall there is not enough burden of proof to implicate AK, furthermore mass damage to the economic status of the game did not occur in this incident, With information I dont really see how anyone can expect anything to happen to them, I am not about to throw a ally under the bus for a action of one person. Like i said before if you have any other proof then dm me, we will be happy to reevaluate if such a time comes.
  27. 3 points
    I don't think downvotes should be removed. It's not censorship. No one is stopping anyone from posting. It's a method of signaling disagreement and that shouldn't be removed from a game like this. There are situations it gets abused in but that doesn't mean the entire feature should be nixed.
  28. 3 points
    On one hand - well played ? On the other - if you’re implying that Inst has the same amount of influence on your bloc that Thrax does on ours...that explains a lot about your bloc.
  29. 3 points
    I don’t agree that downvotes are politicized. For instance, the people who have the most downvotes (from both sides of the coalitions) typically post the things that either make the least amount of sense to others/are seeking attention/are generally disrespected due to their own actions. Roquentin is the leader of the opposite coalition of me, but I would be willing to bet that I have upvoted more things than I have downvoted of his. I would bet that it is the case for a good portion of folks from both sides of the aisle.
  30. 3 points
    I completely disagree with this. This would, quite frankly, mess up the game a bit further than it already is. Let me explain a tad bit. The Politics part of Politics and War is alliance wide. It's not with-in the nations. Alliances - for the most part - control when wars (the other part of Politics and War) occur. Also, in-nation politics would require Alex to restructure approval rating. It's almost impossible to have a nation older than a year and still have decent approval rating. Point being. This would cause older nations to lose out. The older your nation is, the harder it is to be positive. Not going to lie to you chief, this doesn't seem like something that you will be able to keep high enough for nations to be profitable. (This would also piss off a lot of people who tried to intentionally get their Approval Rating as low as they can.)
  31. 3 points
    BK in this case is literally worse than Hitler.
  32. 3 points
    I agree, I'd be fine with just disabling downvoting. I think I suggested that when upvotes/downvotes were added but was shot down.
  33. 3 points
    ? As far as I know, you haven’t broken any rules. Unlike you, I don’t like to make reports that I know are a waste of moderation’s time. Also, it’s interesting that you will only be looking out for ‘infractions’ against ‘my coalition’. By the definition, would that not be using moderation as a weapon?
  34. 2 points
  35. 2 points
    By the way, most of the ads are for dating beautiful foreign girls who outnumber men 7 to 1. Is Alex trying to hint at something for us baseball players? ?
  36. 2 points
  37. 2 points
  38. 2 points
    I think the idea has merit. Allowing more political decisions within your Nation would give some more gameplay. The larger the Nation the bigger the hit certain politics would have. The benefit is that younger Nations would be able to catch up somewhat before themselves being slowed down. I'd be interested to hear more on this from you.
  39. 2 points
    Certain groups of players do seem to aggressively downvote players they are opposed to. It has tailed off a lot, but at the start of the war it was rampant.
  40. 2 points
    Your deflection skills have dropped since your vacation
  41. 2 points
    I'm playing 9 people right now, and that's 5 second per person So for ONE person playing Home Games, they have to wait 45 seconds minimum for his turn to play *1 game*. Sadness when you limit the Away player's games. That's worse than 5 seconds. EDIT/UPDATE: Thanks ❤️ Let's test it EDIT 3: Just a suggestion, but how about 1 second (or 1.5 seconds)?
  42. 2 points
  43. 2 points
    The irony of these changes is that all the power players @Alex is trying to nerf have already made their money. All you've done is make sure nobody else can catch up. Personally I only baseball to get out of bill lock so this doesn't affect me. But the fact that your solution to baseball power players getting rich is to give them an unassailable head-start is hilarious.
  44. 2 points
    Yes it is unfortunately, we have fixed the problem for version 2.0 of the stats site, but that is still a while off being released.
  45. 2 points
  46. 2 points
    I have a better Idea for you. Since you are suggesting to "get a life", go and get a life for yourself so you will stop judging others. aye?
  47. 2 points
    The maximum revenue generated in a game with max upgrades and two 100 rated teams is ~$127,710 ~$28,000. There are some players playing over 30,000 games a day. Even if they're averaging half of that, that's ~$1.5b ~$420m generated in a day, just playing baseball. And quite possibly with a script that at this point there's really not a way to effectively block (of course, I'm looking into that.) I'm not planning on removing baseball, but I do think that earnings need to be nerfed, and there needs to be a dropoff point so that people aren't playing 30,000 games a day. That's one game every 2.7 seconds for 24 hours straight. Does no one else think that's ridiculous? I'm also going to look at more effective captchas, rate limiting games to one per 10 seconds or something, and better detection for scripters. But I still can't believe that popular sentiment is pro leaving baseball the way it is (completely gamebreaking, in my opinion.) And I am aware that there have been some organized downvote brigades against this post already.
  48. 2 points
    I still disagree with that. People are just annoyed that the activity is roughly the same shit today. It'll pass, and this board will go back to being DoEs and other boring stuff.
  49. 2 points
  50. 2 points
    So... You have admitted to being the one who derailed the thread, and that you viewed my post as ‘bait’ to derail the thread but ‘to my credit, didn’t derail the thread’. On top of that you have also admitted of wanting to use OOC moderation to impact your IC opposing coalition and do whatever you can to hurt people’s chances of playing this game so that the only people left are people from your coalition. Does that about cover it? Like I said, stop wasting moderation’s time.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.